Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-05-02
PROHIBITION.
Usage OF Travis"
diCa5ion.

| "SaS0 or Travis"
AUSTIN, TEX, April %, 1857.
Hon. Barnet Gibbs, Dallas, Tex.
MY DEAR SIR regret to inform yor
that my business engagements will moi
permit me to meet at Dallas in May mex
with those who oppose what is termed
prohibition. Even were it otherwise i
cannot believe that my presence there
would be either necessary or useful. i
Unwilling, however, to evade that
measure of responsibility which attaches
to every private citizen of Texas, now
comply with your request to give my
opinion regarding the proposed change Of
the state constitution.
The clause now found in the state con.
stitution which permits the people of any
county, city or town, who desire to stop
the sale of liquor in their midst, to vote il
away from them, was q compromise of
| conflicting views regarding this liquor
question among those who made that con-
stitution.
Time and observation have convinced
me that it was wise compromise; and
though l have never been able to defend
it on principle, have acquiesced in it
for the benefit of communities who de-
sired and were already prepared to
enforce local option among
themselves. But when it is
proposed to change al this,
by substituting state prohibition for 10
cal option, and permitting prohibition
majorities in one portion of the stste to
dictate to anti-prohibiLion msjorities in
other sections of the state, [ can see
nothing in the future out disrespect and
successful defiance of law.
Local option is beyond the domain of
party politics now, because it was born
of compromise and is sanctioned by our
state constitution, which every true
Democrat must respect. Hence, the last
Democratic state convention could, and
did, very properly declare:' "We do not
believe that the views of any citizen upon
the question of local option should inter-
tere with his standing in the Democratic
party" This is all that was ever de-
clared by that conventions.
But no Democratic convention in Texas
has ever said that absolute state prohibit
ton should not be made aparty issue. l can
not now and have never subscribed to the
doctrine that state prohibition should be
treated as moral question only, for to
me it is far-reaching az precedent and
of fearful political significance. II indeed
it should be regarded and voted on by the
people as q moral question only, then
ministers of the gospel and holy scrip
lures should be alonesconsuited.
Political conventions cannot make
principles for men, even should they at
tempt it; their true province is to an
nounce doctrines already held in common
by those who compose them. Such a
body can Conventionize a man out of his
preference, as between rival candidates
of the same political faith, but never out
of mis- principles. Conventions are neces-
sary evils at best, but whenever they IN
dertake to resolve men by platforms out
of their convictions on great public ques-
tions, they become potent engines for evil
in the hands ofdesigning leaders, and if
blindlY submitted to, would result in
prostituting representative government,
and turning itzover to convention rings.
The citizen who changes his views of the
powers and duties of his state, as often as
his party platform is changed, is unfit for
membership in any party, for he has no
convictions of his own, and he becomes
dangerous factor in representative gov
ernment.,a
The Jealous friends of total abstinence
have chosen to break loose from the COM
promise In the constitution which per-
mitted local option, and which withdrew
the liquor question from the domain of
party politics, and to precipitate the issue
of state prohibition upon the people.
They will now seek in vain to eyade the
political significance of the issue thus
presented.
It is not my purpose to discuss in this
letter at length either the policy or moral
itY of changing the constitution so as to
prohibit every man in Texas from making
bottle of wine even for himself. | sim
ply say that 1 am opposed tc such a
change.
q l care not what northern or western
states or courts have voted or decided on
Such a question. The idea that ali the
people of Texas shall abstain from press
ing the juice of the grape which the Erea-
tor has given US, and which when once
pressed His laws will manufacture into
wine without our help, and this because
one man in a hundred will abuse His
bounty and get drunk, is not consistent
with my views of Democratic government
or of rational reform. 81
Since 1876, when our constitution went
into effect, 1 have steadfastly refused all
invitations to address the people outside
of my own county about local option
elections, for believed, and still believe,
that the constitutional compromise of
tots vexed question should be lived up to!
in good faith. Indeed, l never made but
one speech on prohibition even, and that
was years ago, in the State Senate.